Recently in Conservatism Category

Frank Luntz of the Washington Post has an interesting piece dealing with the 5 Myths About Conservative Voters. Luntz attempts to address those myths that Democrats believe about conservative voters.

For the most part I agree with his points, but at times he gets a little mushy as if he doesn't want to offend the sensibilities of his liberal readers. On his very first "busted" myth he doesn't quite make the connection between what conservatives want in regards to government and what it means.

Conservatives care most about the size of government.

Today, conservatives don't want a reduced government so much as one that works better and wastes less.

In a poll we completed among self-identified conservatives just before the 2010 elections,"efficient" and "effective" government clearly beat "less" and "smaller" government. For conservatives, this debate is less about size than about results, along with a demand that elected officials demonstrate accountability and respect for the taxpayer, regardless of whether they're spending $1 million or $1 trillion.

--snip--

It used to be that conservatives supported smaller government on theoretical grounds: The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen; government should only do for people what they truly cannot do for themselves; government isn't the solution, it is the problem.

I think Luntz missed the point. A government that works better and wastes less will be smaller. There won't need to be nearly as much government (and attendant bureaucrats) in order for government to perform its functions. One begets the other.

We want smaller government because it costs less and is more efficient. If being more efficient and less costly creates a smaller government, so be it. Just so long as they stop wasting taxpayer dollars on things we neither need or want.

(H/T Maggie's Farm)

Imagine my surprise to find out that Janine Turner (yes, that Janine Turner) has joined PJ Media.

Her first foray into the world of PJ Media delves into the daunting topic of How To Convert A Democrat.

One of her first points: Do not remain silent when Democrats start stating outright untruths. Silence is taken as agreement with a position, even if it is blatantly wrong. She also gives us a list of things to remember in our efforts to "convert unyielding and uninformed liberals". Among them, reason and knowledge.

To enter into this battle, one must be armed, agile, sharp, and resolute.

Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing, including the comments.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Janine!

Why that is the case is ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy, one of the few adults working at National Review these days. The brutal and sadistic murder of the Fogel family was, in a perverse way, more dreadful than the horrific calamity that struck Japan around the same time. I'm thinking of the jubilant reaction to it by Palestinians in the street.

Oh, how I miss the days when John O'Sullivan was the editor of NR and Peter Brimelow was publishing front-page stories!

And another important insight is provided by the underappreciated reporter Charlotte Allen. Touring the streets of Cairo for the Weekly Standard, she discovers that what the typical Muslim yearns for is very different from what we yearn for. "It's as if they live in their own world," she concludes. (I may be paraphrasing.)

Over the years I have had interesting conversations, and not a few heated discussions with progressives of all stripes. Far too often their arguments devolve into what they feel about something rather than what they think about it. Other times it's one lame talking point after another, many which sound good on the face of it but aren't backed up by personal experience, or history. It's all theory and feel-good sound bites. Failures in practical applications of their beliefs are explained away with excuses like "It was implemented poorly" or "Everyone has to be brought into the fold otherwise it doesn't work" or "We won't make the same mistakes the others made."

That last one is always my favorite, allowing me to use one of two rejoinders, those being: "Yeah, you'll make worse mistakes!" and "Do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over, but expecting the results to be different this time." That always brings them up short.

But I am not the best person to speak on such matters. That title belongs to those who lived under the oppressive regimes of "progressive" or "socialist" utopian countries. More often than not they're capable of skewering ever single talking point or nonsensical utterance brought forth by the 'enlightened' progressives because they suffered under the very system the progressives wish to force upon us.

One such is ex-Soviet immigrant Oleg Atbashian, who poses a number of questions progressives are loath to answer:

Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:

If all cultures are equal, why doesn't UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?

If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?

Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?

If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn't fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn't he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn't this an obvious conflict of interests?

How did the "war on poverty" end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire? Who is the occupying force and who are the insurgents?

Why weren't there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule? And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?

If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?

If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?

How come those calling Sarah Palin a "bimbo" often look like part of Paris Hilton's entourage?

How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?

If being a winner in nature's struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?

How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?

And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

Indeed. Read the whole thing and if there are any questions you can think of that might also annoy progressives, add them to the comments of Oleg's post.

Here are a few questions gleaned from the comments:

Why are gun control advocates so violent?

Why is it that the Left's mantra is "Celebrate Diversity" yet they all think the exact same and anybody who has a "diverse thought" is taken to the town square and hung?

Why is it I've never worked for a poor person?

If Communism was such a shining example for everyone, why didn't they put up a "Picture Window" instead of an Iron Curtain?

If all cultures are equal, then why are the liberals down on red-necks and conservatives?

Why do all leftist states have to build walls to keep their own people in, whereas rightist states have to build walls to keep other people out?

Why is leftism never judged by its reality but only by its lofty promises?

And the list goes on and on. Can any of you think of questions that would annoy progressives?

(H/T Maggie's Farm)

The budget battles have started ay both the state and federal level. In Washington, Congress is dealing with the soon-to-expire continuing resolution that has funded government operations up till now. The GOP representatives are trying to trim $100 billion from budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, and moving to trim the bloated budget proposed by President Obama for the coming fiscal year.

Here in New Hampshire the governor put forth a budget that will bring spending down to pre-2008 levels in FY2012, trims the state workforce by 1100 jobs (10%), though only 255 jobs actual will be lost (the balance are jobs unfilled due to a hiring freeze), lowers the amount of state aid to towns and cities, pushes back the retirement age for state employees, and delays funding for hospital expansions. The new proposed two-year budget is $800 million lower than the present biennial budget, which helps fill the $800 million deficit created by the formerly Democrat majority legislature over the past 4 years.

To read some of the comments about the slimmer budget, you'd think the governor and the legislature is proposing stealing bread from the mouths of the poor at the behest of the rich. Some are proposing a state income tax or sales tax to fill the budget gap despite plenty of history showing the tax monies raised would only be wasted and, in the end, leave the state even more vulnerable to economic downturns. (All one needs to do is look at the states with such taxes to see what an unmitigated financial disaster was created by dependence on those taxes.) Far too many of the economic ignoramuses seem to thing we have a revenue problem when the truth is we've had a spending problem. As one commenter put it, "This is less than a 10% reduction in state spending. I know families that have reduced their spending by 10%, and some by as much as 40%." If we can do it, so can the state.

Other states, like Wisconsin and Ohio are seeing pushback by their state employees despite the fact that both states are facing huge budget deficits and raising taxes any further would cause far more economic harm.

In Wisconsin, state employees protested at the state capitol building, decrying Governor Scott Walker's push to limit the public employees unions' grip on state payrolls in an effort to deal with an $8.3 billion budget shortfall. Listening to some of the protesters you'd think they believe they have the right to a job for life and that the state's taxpayers had better come up with the cash to pay their salaries and benefits, or else. They complain about measures the state has taken that private businesses have had to take in the recent past in order to survive, like increasing the the amount employees pay towards their health insurance. What makes them think they are somehow immune from the effects of a bad economy and state cash flow problems? As if that isn't bad enough, Wisconsin State Senate Democrats have fled the state and hidden themselves in Illinois in order to prevent any further legislative action from being taken on the matter.

Similar scenes are taking place in Ohio as well, where the state faces a similar $8 billion budget shortfall.

The question is, when will the state legislatures and employees start listening to the taxpayers, who have said "Enough! We can't afford any more!" The answer? Not any time soon.

Has the next in a series of death blows been visited upon ObamaCare? If the recent decision by Federal Judge Roger Vinson striking down ObamaCare is any indicator, then the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom--we would argue the destructiveness--of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson's 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.

ObamaCare mandated every citizen must buy health insurance in order to remain a citizen on good standing, in effect forcing people into an economic activity - buying a service from a provider whether they want to or not - and justifying it under the Commerce Clause. The judge wasn't buying it, nor the governments claim that even inactivity is really economic activity, particularly in light of the fact that citizens can't buy health insurance across state lines, therefore the activity isn't considered interstate commerce. (In case you aren't aware, the Commerce Clause in the constitution deals with regulating interstate commerce as a means of preventing one state from putting up barriers to trade with other states.) The government really tried to stretch the meaning of the Commerce Clause into areas it was never meant to cover.

Ironically, congressional Democrats of the 111^th Congress may have laid the foundations of the law's own destruction.

Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute--paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a "severability" clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was "essential" to the bill's goals and mechanisms and compared it to "a finely crafted watch." Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be "tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it."

As such, severability allows for one portion of a statute in question to be struck down as unconstitutional without affecting the rest of it. Without it, if one portion is struck down, the entire statute is struck down. Should Judge Vinson's decision survive appeal, and if required, Supreme Court review, ObamaCare will be dead.

So much for Nancy Pelosi's dismissal of ObamaCare's constitutionality.

Vinson went deeper, also addressing the backdoor use of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the government's actions.

Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration's attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause. His decision acknowledges that, while reforming an insurance market is a regulation of commerce, Congress cannot artificially create its own "free rider" crisis in the insurance market and then use that crisis to justify an otherwise unconstitutional mandate as "necessary and proper" to save the market from collapse.

So, in effect what the government was trying to do was create a health care crisis, and then use that crisis to implement control over the health care system. It sounds almost like the old Mob "protection" racket: "Gee, that's a nice health care system you've got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...." It's almost like something out of The Untouchables. (Hey, didn't that take place in Chicago? And isn't Obama a creation of the Chicago political machine? I'm just sayin'....)

The decision has affected at least one state not part of the suit.

Here in New Hampshire, Republican House leaders have called on the Executive Council to reject a proposed $610,675 consulting contract that would lay the groundwork for implementing the provisions of ObamaCare.

...Gov. John Lynch (sic) press secretary Colin Manning said the council may not get the chance to take up the contract at their meeting -- it could be pulled from the agenda by Lynch or withdrawn from consideration by Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny.

"My understanding is that it will not come up for a vote," Manning said late Tuesday.

If the council does vote to reject the contract, Lynch cannot override the vote.

While the previously Democrat majority legislature and Executive Council would have likely gone along with this effort, the present legislature - a heavy GOP super-majority in both the House and Senate - and the all Republican Executive Council, are likely to block any action or funding for such an effort, particularly in light of Judge Vinson's decision. With a return to fiscal sanity in Concord, it is highly unlikely the legislature or the council will go along with something that will eventually lead to millions being added to the budget deficit already facing the state.

It seems ObamaCare is on the path to a well deserved death.

UPDATE: David Harsanyi delves into the claims by the White House that Judge Vinson's decision was nothing more than judicial activism.

Writes Harsanyi:

Co-opting conservative terms like "judicial activism" is a cute way of trying to turn the tables on those who have some reverence for the original intent of the Founders.

--snip--

Vinson may be overruled, but his decision is cogent and persuasive and doesn't seek out excuses for abuse. His ruling asks for the kind of government restraint that judges rarely have the appetite to call for, even though, need I remind you, "judicial activism" in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Apparently judicial activism is only proper when a decision expands the power of progressives working to weaken individual rights in favor of more control by the state, ignoring the Constitution or creating new rights out of thin air.

In yet another First-In-The-Nation moment, the New Hampshire GOP selected Tea party activist Jack Kimball as its new chairman, replacing outgoing chairman former governor John H. Sununu.

After a sweeping GOP victory in state-wide elections this past November with both chambers of the state legislature seating GOP super-majorities and the Executive Council being 100% Republican, Tea party supporters worked had to seat Kimball as the new chairman, hoping to make sure New Hampshire returns to it's traditional fiscal frugality after 4 years of deficit-ridden rule by Democrats.

The more I read and hear about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie the more I like the guy.

Why do I like him? It's simple, really. He speaks his mind. He says what he means and means what he says. In other words, he's blunt. He doesn't use euphemisms to skirt around issues or situations others might fear to address. If only there were more like him in government.

We've seen the videos of him addressing teachers, state employees, journalists, and just plain folks and telling them things they may not want to hear but need to hear. We've read about many of these same encounters. And each time he comes out ahead of his detractors and gains support from the "just plain folks."

With that in mind we should take a look at what the Philadelphia Daily News has dubbed "The Sayings of Chris Christie." A few examples:

"Let me help you pack."

That's what N.J. Gov. Chris Christie said to an overpaid school superintendent who tried to front-load his contract so he wouldn't be subject to Christie's proposed salary cap. When Christie tagged the superintendent the "poster boy of greed and arrogance," the school chief noted that he didn't have to work in Jersey - he could go elsewhere.

******

"Why would I want a less powerful job than the one I have now?"

Christie's tongue-in-cheek take on the notion that he might run for president. In fact, New Jersey's constitution grants the governor far more power than the governors of most other states. As for a presidential bid in 2012, Christie still says, "No way."

******

"I didn't want to be governor to be something. I wanted to be governor to do something." Christie's self-proclaimed raison d'être. This goes with a story about how he doesn't care if he's re-elected, he simply wants to get things done.

You gotta love a guy like that. As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing. Pay close attention to the comments as I think you'll find more than a few people not liking the idea that their governor is willing to let New Jersey taxpayers keep more of their money.

Bill Whittle addresses American Exceptionalism, something we know our present President doesn't like and has been working hard to destroy. But I think Obama will find that while he may dent it a bit, he doesn't have the wherewithal to overcome the sheer inertia of American Exceptionalism. American know-how and those providing it will always find a way around those in this country working hard to bring about its downfall.

One thing I found interesting: With only 5% of the world's population, American produces 24% of the world's GDP, which is 3 times more than China produces even though it has over 4 times as many people.

The budget season has started here in New Hampshire, with towns, cities, and the state working to put together budgets for the upcoming fiscal year.

It may be the recent win by self-declared fiscal conservatives in state and national elections that have driven home the point that the taxpayers have had enough of profligate spending and will be watching their elected officials much more closely than they have in the past.

Our little town has been way ahead of the pack, with the selectmen and the budget committee scrutinizing every penny and making cuts to keep spending in check during these difficult economic times. Should both entities get their way, our town's budget for the next fiscal year will be smaller than this year's, the third year in a row for that trend. The same is true of the school budget. (Like most towns and cities in New Hampshire, the municipal and school budgets are entirely separate. But in towns like ours with an elected budget committee, the committee reviews and votes whether or not to recommend the warrants articles from both.)

At the state level the governor has already warned state agencies to prepare for tough choices they'll have to make.

The previous two budgets increased spending by more than 30% over the past 4 years (New Hampshire has a two-year budget), but this time around the Democrat governor has to deal with an overwhelmingly Republican legislature (74.5% of the seats in the 400 seat New Hampshire House are in the hands of the GOP, as are 79% of the seats in the state Senate). During the previous two budgets the governor had a Democrat majority in the legislature to back up his spending plans. Assuming the Republicans in the legislature follow through on their promises to keep spending in check, if not roll back some expenditures and the taxes that go with them, it can be expected that state spending will remain flat, if not decrease from the present biennial budget. And should the governor veto a lean GOP budget, both chambers of the legislature have the votes to override it.

It will be interesting to watch the budget deliberations at the local and state level and compare it to what will be going on in Washington during the 112^th Congress. Our Representatives and our Senators in Congress know we will be watching closely and will be more than willing to throw them out if they don't do as so many at the state and local level have done: keep spending and taxes in check.

Bill Whittle tackles yet another myth about the Tea party, specifically immigration and racism. As Bill tells us, far too many Tea party detractors have labeled us "stupid uneducated Neanderthals. We're white trash rednecks, knuckle-dragging proto-Nazis, KKK-loving violent extremists ready to execute anyone who won't bend their knee to the upcoming Christian theocracy...Oh, and we're domestic terrorists." We've also been accused of being anti-immigration. We're not. We're anti-illegal immigration. There's a big difference.

I'll let Bill explain it as he does so far better than I can.


I must admit I like his suggestion about going to Jessica Alba's or Lady Gaga's house and showing them up for the hypocrites they are.

Far too many people really have little understanding of the Second Amendment and why the Framers of the Constitution included it. And many of those same people have the mistaken belief that disarming a law abiding citizenry will somehow lead to less crime and violence despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

In the next is his series, Bill Whittle explains why 'they' are mistaken and why so many of the rest of us own and carry guns.


As the old saying goes when it comes to dealing with violent criminal miscreants, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Bill Whittle continues with his series about what it is we believe and why in his efforts to dispel the myths about the Tea party and its supporters.



I particularly agree with his point about the economy, specifically that the recession was "created by bad law."

One of the great tenets of the Left is that wealth is a zero-sum game, meaning they believe that in order for one person to become wealthy that someone else had to become poor.

Those of us who support the Tea party know that belief to be a canard, an excuse to steal wealth from those who created it.

If you aren't sure you believe that, then Bill Whittle has a little lesson about wealth, how it's created, and who benefits. (A hint: Everyone benefits.)

In this rather timely WSJ opinion piece, Peter Berkowitz delves into more reasons why liberals don't (or can't) understand the Tea party movement.

What's worse, they don't even understand the basis or the basics of our form of government, nor do they want to.

Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.

In their ignorance they see the bliss of a totalitarian state, where they make the decisions for the rest of us poor benighted souls incapable of understanding their superiority.

Yeah. Right.

Unfortunately it is these very same liberals who are the benighted souls incapable of understanding their inferiority to a incredibly large majority of Americans, a majority that understand what can make or break a business, who see the direct effects of poor government and ever more onerous taxes and regulations. In other words, they cannot understand why the Tea parties have been garnering so much support. It comes down a simple concept:

The Tea parties understand the inferiority of the liberal mind set and their inability to see that which is right in front of them - the country can't keep spending money it doesn't have on government programs that don't work run by people who are barely competent enough to run their own lives, let alone anyone else's.

It's easy for liberals to disparage Tea partiers as a resurrection of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850's, but they have shown themselves to be the modern day Know-Nothings, particularly when it comes to the origin of the Tea party moniker.

That lack was shown quite publicly when the liberals tore into Tea party favorite Sarah Palin for her comment "Party like it's 1773."

When Sarah Palin told a Tea Party crowd last Monday that it wasn't time yet to "party like it's 1773," segments of the left such as Kos's founder Markos Moulitsas chortled at her supposed stupidity. Their kneejerk assumption was that Palin was so ignorant that she didn't even know the date of early events in the American Revolution. But since it was actually the Boston Tea Party (1773) to which she was referring, it was Sarah who had the last laugh.

Commenters and lefty bloggers galore echoed Markos Moulitsas's post. Of course if they'd spent about 30 seconds Googling "Tea Party" and "1773" they would have come across the Boston Tea Party - which took place on December 16, 1773 - they wouldn't have sounded like the smug idiots they proved themselves to be.

So who is it who's misinformed about the modern day Tea parties and spreading myths about its motivations, beliefs, and origins?

You only get one guess....

Here's the second in a series of videos from Bill Whittle explaining how it is the members of the Tea parties are smarter than the ruling elite by a few orders of magnitude, particularly when it comes to the economy.


Part I can be found here.

It's obvious from reading the number of screeds decrying the Tea parties and their alleged anti-abortion, pro-fundamentalist, anti-poor/pro-rich beliefs that far too many on the Left have absolutely no understanding of the movement or of the people within it. The Left has ascribed so many patently false motivations to the Tea parties that it's difficult for those wanting to know what the they're all about to find the truth.

First, I have a small bit of advice: Listen to what people are saying about the Tea parties. Which ones are sounding the most hysterical and screaming about the Tea parties and what they stand for the loudest? Chances are they're the ones that are lying. And who is screaming the loudest?? Why, the Left, of course.

Second, take a look at the Contract From America. It explains the main tenets of the Tea party movement. It's a short read, with only 10 parts, and each part only a small single paragraph. It will take all of two minutes to read.

Third: Take look at this video by Bill Whittle. It pretty much explains the core beliefs of the Tea party and its supporters. (This video is only Part 1, with more to follow.)



Nowhere in the video or the Contract From America is any mention made of religion, abortion, homosexuality, or stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (By the way, who would want to 'steal' from the poor? They don't have any money to steal, something the Left always ignores.)

It's all about letting Washington and the various state governments know that we're all sick and tired of being told by people nowhere near as wise as we are nor anywhere near as experienced how to live our lives. We're all sick and tired of having our hard earned money taken from us to be spent on things we don't need, don't want, or find so wasteful as to be no better than theft.

Any questions?

With this election season we're seeing a real shift in voter perceptions about government, and particularly the one in Washington. Both Democrats and Republicans are coming under public scrutiny to a level never seen before. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Internet has made it impossible for Congressional shenanigans to be hidden from the American people and that continuous exposure has made the people distrustful of anyone or anything in Washington.

This exposure has done more than just make the people distrustful, it has had the same effect on the two major parties, with the Democrats taking the brunt of it.

Everyone talks about the tensions between the Republican establishment, such as it is, and the tea-party-leaning parts of its base. But are you looking at what's happening with the Democrats? Tensions between President Obama and his supporters tore into the open this week as never before, signifying a real and developing fracturing of his party.

--snip--

There is a war beginning in the Democratic Party, and the president has lost control of his base.

The Democratic Party right now is showing signs of coming apart under the pressure of the election and two years of an unpopular presidency. But it's not a split in two, with the left versus the establishment. It's more like a splintering, with left-leaning activists distancing themselves from the party's politicians, and moderate politicians distancing themselves from Mr. Obama.

And part of what's driving it is what is driving the evolution of the Republican Party. The Internet changed everything. Everyone has facts now, knows who voted how and why. New thought leaders spring up and lead in new directions. Total transparency leads to party fracturing. Information dings unity. We are in new territory.

Obama wanted transparency in government, but somehow I doubt this is what he had in mind. Every back-door deal is being exposed. Every piece-of-crap bill is being gone over with a fine toothed comb and being shown for the destructive legislation it is. Every budget item is scrutinized and every tax increase lambasted for the theft it is. Every legislative failure is analyzed to death and every 'victory' is shredded in the court of public opinion.

About the only thing that isn't transparent are the behind the scenes machinations of the Obama Administration and the congressional Democrats, something The One promised wouldn't happen on his watch.

There's no need to guess why the American public is pissed off and why the Democrat Party is starting to come apart at the seams. Not that the GOP is much better.

The contest between the GOP establishment, the RINOs, and the new breed of fiscal conservatives known as the Tea party has caused fractures within the Republican party as well. While those fractures don't appear to be as wide or as numerous as those seen in the Democrat Party, they're still there and have given pause to the GOP leadership at the state and national level. Candidates, particularly those seen as RINOs, like Mike Castle in Delaware and Charlie Crist in Florida, have been soundly trounced by Tea party backed candidates. The GOP leadership hasn't yet realized that business as usual won't fly this time around. Until they do they will see their hand-picked candidates fall to fiscally conservative outsiders tired of seeing the GOP act more like the Democrat Party Lite.

What will come of this fracturing within both parties? Will we see one party wither away to be replaced with another because it cannot adapt to changes made by the American people? Will the power of one party be so weakened due to internal divisions that it will become a long term minority party?

Only time will answer these questions.

Another winning strategy the Democrats are using to ensure their defeat in November that's even worse than the first one I wrote about? Would you believe blaming the voters? Yeah, that ought to work.

Said [Senator] Kerry, "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening." Bay State voters are surely thrilled to be represented by a man so respectful of their concerns.

This week President Obama chimed in with another uplifting message about the American electorate. Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that the tea party movement is financed and directed by "powerful, special-interest lobbies." But this doesn't mean that tea party groups are composed entirely of corporate puppets. Mr. Obama graciously implied that a small subset of the movement is simply motivated by bigotry.

I guess that's true if one defines bigotry as exercising the right to disagree with The One and his minions, Pelosi and Reid.

From the comments section of the WSJ piece linked above comes this observation:

The problem President Obama represents for the Democrats is that he is their choice for President. After quite a bit of care and thinking and strategy, they offered him up as their standard for the person they most wanted to be their President, our President. Confidently they proclaimed him to be their ideal "leader."

Yet, what Americans want from Their Leader is someone prepared to be Commander in Chief. Obama is, instead, Complainer in Chief. He is Whiner in Chief. He is Denigrator in Chief. He is Apologizer in Chief. He is Berater in Chief. In short, he is entirely non-Presidential.

Barack Obama, rather than being President for All The People, sees himself as for Only Some of the People. The nation wanted to get past partisan, Obama took us deeper into partisanship. The nation wanted a bit less unilateralism, Obama absolutely has shown us it is his way or the highway. Barack Obama, rather than being the Uniter he promised to be, has been most purposefully the Divider, appealing to class warfare, envy, and imagined racial bigotry.

And should the Democrats suffer a November slaughter, the blame will be laid solely upon the voters who were too stupid to recognize the Democrat elite as being far superior to us and the only ones capable of running our lives for us. It will be because we were incapable of coming under the sway of their grand vision and therefore mentally defective. And it will be our fault because we weren't willing to surrender ourselves into state slavery as so many others already have, and letting the Left do our thinking for us.

Or it will be the fault of the voters who saw where the Left has been trying to take us and decided to say "Stop! No more! Not one step further into servitude! We are free men and women and we make our own choices and run our own lives because you are neither smart enough or wise enough to do so, and you never will be."

So yes, it is we the voters who should be blamed for Obama's and Pelosi's and Reid's failure to implement their dystopian plan. Not because we're too stupid but because we're too smart.

But that doesn't fit into the Left's narrative, does it?

It began with Bush's "killing capitalism to save it" approach. It gained steam with the socialist destruction of the country by the Alien-in-Chief. What is the tea party?

Matthew Kibbe is right on. It reminds me of the scene in the movie _V for Vendetta_ where Creedy can't kill V and asks, "Why won't you die?"